Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[BigAl]

The NIST explanation suggests "negligible support from the structure below", while free fall suggests the complete absence of support from the structure below. extensive but localised damage and spreading fires do not account for that compete absence of support.

When Chandler takes his measurements from a crappy, compressed YouTube video and ignores error margins the difference between free-fall and near free-fall becomes indistinguishable.

I don't know where you got what I bolded from. The assertions are contradicted by the facts.

NIST says the simulations explains and support the apparent near-free-fall. You may deny that conclusion only after showing you know what engineering simulation is all about.

 

[BigAl]

As I said above, I was just suggesting that in the right setup it could cut deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the beam enough for it to collapse under the weight it is supporting.

But nobody can show us what "the right setup" is and people familiar with thematic materials say it is impossible unless you build something so huge that you might as well do it at noon in times square for all to see.

It didn't happen. Rule it out as a possibility.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The NIST explanation suggests "negligible support from the structure below", while free fall suggests the complete absence of support from the structure below. extensive but localised damage and spreading fires do not account for that compete absence of support.

You might want to read about the very definition of progressive collapse. The Murrah building, and Ronin point plaza are two such examples. The support wasn't immediately gone, but it rapidly degenerated as the interior structure failed until it was finally incapable of holding itself up. Once the columns buckled, they behaved exactly as we expected them to, they essentially provided no support once they began to buckle from the strain. This demolition argument tends to get this idea thrown around that all of the columns had to fail simultaneously in order for the entire exterior to fall, and in reality they didn't need to. The collapse of the interior structure by definition rules any such claim out because it's impact on the exterior wasn't readily visible

 

[TokenMac]

As I said above, I was just suggesting that in the right setup it could cut deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the beam enough for it to collapse under the weight it is supporting.

As Lupie already pointed out, shaped charges only work because of their coppper liner. Packing a shaped charge with a powdered incendiary will do less than nothing. The thermite would be used up well before it could do anything to the steel beams, and the explosive charge wouldn't even be enough to scar the steel on it's own.

 

[kylebisme]

Yes, as the team I was on was part of the search and rescue/recovery. I was all in and out of that pile. Like I said, I was there for ~4 months every single day. I didn't leave GZ for at least the first 2 weeks or so. I would have seen it, or heard about it. I, however, did not. Please do not assume, as it makes yourself look like a fool.

I only asked whether you went down bellow or not, my only assumption was that most people at GZ did not. Surely you are not suggesting that assumption is wrong?

Regardless, I'm not in a position to take your word on the molten steel any more than those who were there reporting otherwise. Actually, the reported of temperatures over 1,000c and the mass amounts of steel distributed throughout the rubble leave it rather unlikely that no steel was melted.

Yeah, its called knowledge of fire and its properties. I absolutely guarantee that if you take thousands of offices, and put all their contents underneath a huge pile of steel, and set it on fire, it WILL most certainly heaat that steel for quite some time. The other problem is it would smolder. A smoldering fire
will in fact stay smoldering for months.

Just google "muck fires" and see what I am talking about. This is not a new concept.

I'm confused here, are both denying the reports of molten steel and attempting to explain them? And what do you suggest started these fires which were reported as beginning at over 1000c and cooling gradually from there?

Yes, and there were no huge booms big enough to be conclusive of a controlled demolition.

Not indicative of a traditional controlled demolition that is.

And my knowledge of building physics is very limited.

There are no special rules of physics for buildings, though if physics are not a strong point for you, I respect your refusal to consider the question.

Nope, but it didn't matter. It would have continued to collapse one it started. Nothing would have been able to stop it.

I've yet to see a decent attempt to confirm this assumption.

Yepo, but if you read the WHOLE THING, it completely debunks your claim of no investigation.

I did not claim no investigation, I said the very little of the rubble received investigation. Also, I meant in regard to how it came down, not scouring it for remains.

 

[kylebisme]

Ok, think of this "negligible " support. This is like trying to jump on an M&M. It is NOT going to slow your decent even a 1/1,000,000,000 of a second. It is useless.

Another anology.

Imagine I am driving a car 100 MPH. Now, try to jump out and stop me with just your body. What speed is my caar going to slow to?? Actually, a better questions is, How far is your body going to fly.

Yet the building was neither jumped on by a giant nor did it jump out of a giant car.

I AM NOT CONDONING VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

I didn't take it like that.

When Chandler takes his measurements from a crappy, compressed YouTube video and ignores error margins the difference between free-fall and near free-fall becomes indistinguishable.

NIST reports a period of free fall from higher quality video.

I don't know where you got what I bolded from. The assertions are contradicted by the facts.

NIST says the simulations explains and support the apparent near-free-fall. You may deny that conclusion only after showing you know what engineering simulation is all about.

The videos NIST provided of their simulation looks very different from the videos of the collapse, the first being far more asymmetrical than the latter.

But nobody can show us what "the right setup" is and people familiar with thematic materials say it is impossible unless you build something so huge that you might as well do it at noon in times square for all to see.

NG could have done a better job if they took the themite out of the bags and stacked a respectable amount of weight on top of the beam. Building the cup parallel and equidistant to all portions of the column rather than coning out from it would have helped too. It would also have been nice if the got the highest yield blend the could lay their hands on, which I doubt they did. Given those conditions, I would bet the bank that the pillar would have given out.

 

[BigAl]

NG could have done a better job if they took the themite out of the bags and stacked a respectable amount of weight on top of the beam. Building the cup parallel and equidistant to all portions of the column rather than coning out from it would have helped too. It would also have been nice if the got the highest yield blend the could lay their hands on, which I doubt they did. Given those conditions, I would bet the bank that the pillar would have given out.

The Mythbusters put 1,000 pounds of thermite on an SUV and it did little more that melt the sheetmetal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a
puddle of liquid steel.)

Any burning themite that isn't in direct contact with steel goes to waste. This makes scaling up to WTC-sized beams a fundamental problem.

Reminder: It takes 2 pounds of themite in direct contact with steel to melt one pound of steel.

 

[kylebisme]

As Lupie already pointed out, shaped charges only work because of their coppper liner. Packing a shaped charge with a powdered incendiary will do less than nothing. The thermite would be used up well before it could do anything to the steel beams, and the explosive charge wouldn't even be enough to scar the steel on it's own.

It would force the thermite sideways into the steel just as gravity would otherwise force it down. Assuming the proper design, that could leave enough of a scar to comprise the structural integrity of the beam.

 

[kylebisme]

The Mythbusters put 1,000 pounds of thermite on an SUV and it did little more that melt the sheetmetal

Had they built a vat to direct the thermite into a smaller area and keep it falling off the body, and not had the themite sperated into bags, I'd wager it would work just fine.

Any burning themite that isn't in direct contact with steel goes to waste. This makes scaling up to WTC-sized beams a fundamental problem.

Reminder: It takes 2 pounds of themite in direct contact with steel to melt one pound of steel.

one need not make but a thin cut to compromise the structural integrity of the beam.

 

[WildCat]

Had they built a vat to direct the thermite into a smaller area and keep it falling off the body, and not had the themite sperated into bags, I'd wager it would work just fine.


one need not make but a thin cut to compromise the structural integrity of the beam.

So now you think there were giant vats filled with thermite on the columns and nobody noticed?

We'll completely ignore for now that that still wouldn't cut through a column.

But thermite has to be the single most moronic truther theory this side of Judy Wood's space beam.

 

[BigAl]

Had they built a vat to direct the thermite into a smaller area and keep it falling off the body, and not had the themite sperated into bags, I'd wager it would work just fine.


one need not make but a thin cut to compromise the structural integrity of the beam.

Do you have any idea how big and thick the beams were?

Thermite doesn't "do" thin.

Let me say this slowly.... Nobody knows how to cut a WTC-sized vertical beam in any way that isn't a public event.

If you keep saying "right setup" you will find yourself in the same place as Bill Smith who is proposing something that would require as much as 30,000 TONS of thermite.

 

[Matthew Cline]

From what I've seen from them, they only developed an explanation for initiation of the collapse. Can you support your clam that they analysed the collapse itself?

Sorry, I was misspeaking, they did only analyze the collapse initiation. Still, if they got the collapse initiation mechanism(s) wrong, then any recommendations they make to improve building safety will be at best worthless, and possibly less than worthless, actually making new buildings less safe. Wouldn't that be a reason to speak out by whoever installed the demolitions?

Actually, I was just suggesting that in the right setup it could cut deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the beam enough for it to collapse under the weight it is supporting.

Your setup still implies that the limiting factor on the speed with which thermite melts through steel is overcoming the viscosity of the molten steel that's already been melted, and (as far as I can tell) the people here who are familiar with using thermite don't believe that to be true.

 

[TruthersLie]

That has no bearing on the point you were responding to.

No twoof, it has a DIRECT bearing on what you said. YOu were claiming the intense temperatures in the piles for the first months after the collapse is a sign of molten steel.

I was replying the first reason it was so hot is because they DIDN'T start actual firefighting for a full 2 weeks AFTER the collapse. That gave the underground fires in the piles 2 full weeks to burn and grow.

It is FULLY applicable to the crap you are trying to spread.

try again.

p.s. the body of the car was thin aluminum or sheetmetal, not steel. Those were the brakes. Unless of course you want to say the whole format was wrong.. because then it makes BRAKES 0 or GASTANK 0 It would help if you could try to actually READ for comprehension.

 

[triforcharity]

I only asked whether you went down bellow or not, my only assumption was that most people at GZ did not. Surely you are not suggesting that assumption is wrong?

In fact, when refering to the firefighters that were there, Yes, it is in fact wrong.

Regardless, I'm not in a position to take your word on the molten steel any more than those who were there reporting otherwise. Actually, the reported of temperatures over 1,000c and the mass amounts of steel distributed throughout the rubble leave it rather unlikely that no steel was melted.

So, you're saying that I am inneligable to comment on the lack of molten metal, and my word is worthless?? I would beg to differ. Considering I was on that pile for ~4 months. There were hundreds of other people who said that there were NOT molten steel under that pile. I would think that you would take the word of 300 people over the opinions of a few. It has also been proven through science that the pile NEVER got hot enough to MELT STEEL!!

I'm confused here, are both denying the reports of molten steel and attempting to explain them? And what do you suggest started these fires which were reported as beginning at over 1000c and cooling gradually from there?

What STARTED the fires?? Have you some kind of mental defenciency that prevents you from understanding that the building was on fire. HUGE FIRES!! Bigger fires that you have EVER seen!!
Would you have assumed that it would have gotten HOTTER??? Fire will cool over time, every time, as it consumes its fuel.

Not indicative of a traditional controlled demolition that is.

Not indictive of any kind of explosion that would have compromised the structural integrity of the towers.

There are no special rules of physics for buildings, though if physics are not a strong point for you, I respect your refusal to consider the question.

I think this is wrong. I think there is the physics of engineering, and the physics of, say, fire. Neither of those topics are YOU qualified (Obviously) to speaak intelligently on.

I've yet to see a decent attempt to confirm this assumption.

Mackey and others have explained this, and cited sources for this. Even I can understand the concept. 10,000 pounds will not be supported by something that is only designed to hold 5,000. These are just numbers I pulled out of thin air. But, again, maybe I am wrong. I doubt I am.

I did not claim no investigation, I said the very little of the rubble received investigation. Also, I meant in regard to how it came down, not scouring it for remains.

The NIST investigated it, and produced a report with more pages than the entire truth movement has brain cells.
What do you mean how it came down?? I can sum it up in 10 words or less.

Bad people steal planes
Planes crash
fire
collapse
dead people

How hard is this to understand??

As far as my car anology. It makes perfect sense. Something is very big, and very strong. Something below it tries to stop it. FAIL.

 

[TruthersLie]

I don't wish to set anything aside, I simply wanted clarification of what you were referring to, and I thank both you and Justin for providing it. As for your two questions; I never suggested traditional explosives were used, but lacking omnipresence I'm not in a position to say what was.

magic did it.

You are the one making the claim that conventional explosives in a shaped charge can cause thermite to cut horizontally or obliquely.

Provide a citation or admit that you are just pulling crap out of your rear.

Oh no.. I"m sorry.

MOTHRA did it. (it has just as much validity as your fairy tale.)

 

[TruthersLie]

Had they built a vat to direct the thermite into a smaller area and keep it falling off the body, and not had the themite sperated into bags, I'd wager it would work just fine.

YOu mean like the Nat Geo test?
a smaller vat to direct the thermite? check
into a smaller area? check
Kept from falling off? check

did it cut the steel beam?

one need not make but a thin cut to compromise the structural integrity of the beam.

great. PROVE IT.

why do you keep avoiding providing ANY citations to support your BS and LIES?

 

[TruthersLie]

it would force the thermite sideways into the steel just as gravity would otherwise force it down. Assuming the proper design, that could leave enough of a scar to comprise the structural integrity of the beam.

prove it.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by kylebisme View Post
I did not claim no investigation, I said the very little of the rubble received investigation. Also, I meant in regard to how it came down, not scouring it for remains.

All the rubble was sorted 3 times. The last time close to where I live and by a team of about 5,000 forensics people. I wrote this recently for someone. If you don't believe me, ask and info to support this claim will be provided.

 

[Lupie]

The italicised quote there was sarcasm directed at the argument which it was a response to.

You did not answer my question. Can thermite, as you claim, be combined with explosive compounds to "cut" steel horizontally more efficiently than an industry standard shaped charge or not? Is it even possible? If so, I'd love to know how. If this is true, if this can be done, and done consistently, you my friend have a lucrative job waiting for you tomorrow morning.

Tell me, how exactly does a thermite incendiary compound that deflagrates upon ignition, rather than detonate, compress and propel a copper liner/penetrator with enough velocity to penetrate steel? You do understand how a shaped charge works, right?

L.

PS- Sarcasm is a poor substitute for facts.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Tell me, how exactly does a thermite incendiary compound that deflagrates upon ignition, rather than detonate, compress and propel a copper liner/penetrator with enough velocity to penetrate steel? You do understand how a shaped charge works, right?

I think that he was saying that a conventional explosive would compress, propel and ignite the thermite, and the hurtling mass of burning thermite would penetrate the steel. As far as I can tell, the assumption is that when thermite melts through steel straight down the limiting factor on speed is that the burning thermite has to sink through the viscous molten steel it just created so that it can come into contact with solid steel and melt that too, thus if gravity was increased that it would vertically cut faster. If this assumption is true, and you horizontally hurled burning thermite at steel, its high initial momentum would cause the thermite to plough straight through the molten steel it was creating, generating a horizontal cut.

Or maybe there's some other reason I'm missing why explosively propelled burning thermite would be better at cutting steel than copper.